What do you think?
Rate this book
THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY is for the minister or Bible student who wants to understand and expound the Scriptures. Notable features include:* commentary based on THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION;* the NIV text printed in the body of the commentary;* sound scholarly methodology that reflects capable research in the original languages;* interpretation that emphasizes the theological unity of each book and of Scripture as a whole;* readable and applicable exposition.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published August 31, 1994
45 people are currently reading
93 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
February 2, 2019
What first interested me in Miller's commentary was a one star review (it seems to have vanished from the internet since then) that read something along the lines: Miller's commentary focuses on historical facts and fails to provide thorough interpretations.
This one star review sold me on buying it. A good commentary should tell you want the text means in context of the time it was written. Many commentaries fail on this point, which leads them to make wildly inaccurate interpretations. Miller digs in deep to the culture of the day, the setting of the people, and provides meaningful insights into the why's and what's of the events. He doesn't skimp as much on interpretations as that one star review led me to believe, and that's fine as the time spent in the background gave him a solid framework for good interpretation and application.
He has a tendency to argue both sides of an issues, and if you're not paying careful attention you can find yourself believing both sides of the issues for a few moments before it all clicks. This is good as it allows you to see a well reasoned approach to both sides and what the weaknesses are as well.
To see more reviews check out my blog: This Sporadic Life
This one star review sold me on buying it. A good commentary should tell you want the text means in context of the time it was written. Many commentaries fail on this point, which leads them to make wildly inaccurate interpretations. Miller digs in deep to the culture of the day, the setting of the people, and provides meaningful insights into the why's and what's of the events. He doesn't skimp as much on interpretations as that one star review led me to believe, and that's fine as the time spent in the background gave him a solid framework for good interpretation and application.
He has a tendency to argue both sides of an issues, and if you're not paying careful attention you can find yourself believing both sides of the issues for a few moments before it all clicks. This is good as it allows you to see a well reasoned approach to both sides and what the weaknesses are as well.
To see more reviews check out my blog: This Sporadic Life
January 19, 2024
Miller, Stephen. Daniel (NAC). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994.
One of the difficulties in writing and reviewing a commentary on a prophetic book is having to pick a side. Choosing one option logically, if not always in practice, entails a subsequent range of prophetic positions. There is no getting around this. Daniel Miller handles this problem nicely. While espousing a futurist and premillennial view, Miller is aware of the other options and provides the reader with footnotes for further study.
Date and Authorship
There are two options for the date and authorship of Daniel: either Daniel wrote it some time in the sixth century B.C., or it is a forgery from the Maccabean period. The historic view held that Daniel, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote the book when he said he did. Liberals, by contrast, not understanding that God can know the future, claim these events happened during the reign of Antiochus IV. Miller makes short work of this position.
For one, someone who fabricates the truth, and is known to do such, simply is not reliable. Moreover, Daniel uses a number of Persian loanwords, which would not have been relevant (or even known) to a second century Jew (Miller 28). Similarly, Daniel’s knowledge of ancient Babylon is far too specific for a second century Jew. By contrast, Daniel 11, presumably speaking of Antiochus IV, is actually too vague to be helpful. Even worse for this position, Persia was not a problem for second century Jews
Babylonian Monarchs
Following the relevant scholarship, Miller argues, persuasively, I think, that Nebuchadnezzar’s son was Nabonidus, who himself sired Belteshazzar.
Prophecy
As Nebuchadnezzar related his four dreams, Daniel explained they are four kingdoms: Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Regardless of one’s prophetic position, this dream parallels the events in chapter seven (though not chapter eight). Miller, not surprisingly for a premillennialist, argues that Rome must be a future Rome. This entity succeeded a coalition of ten kings or nations; that simply did not happen during ancient Rome.
Continuing the same line of thought in chapter seven, Miller argues that the little horn could not have been Antiochus IV, and for largely the same reason as above: Antiochus did not see a federation of ten kings. Only by a stretch can one see Alexander’s generals as a federation of kings, and in any case Antiochus was Greek, not Roman.
Jesus’s coming in the clouds must refer to his second coming. It must refer to a descent because if he is in the clouds, he is already in heaven. While there are referents to his first coming, not all of them obtained. For example, all people are said to worship him, which did not happen in the first century (or now).
Regarding the most difficult passage in Daniel, the Seventy Sevens, Miller explains the various options. They could be a literal period, referring to the time of Antiochus, although the number of years never really coincides with any known decree. The passage could be symbolic, ending in the first century. One is then hard-pressed to explain why such a specific number, seven, must be symbolic, and why there are different lengths of sevens, yet all refer to the same amount of time. Another view is they are symbolic, ending in Christ’s second coming. Similar difficulties apply to this view, but another problem should be noted: it is inconsistent to say the city is literal but the time is spiritual.
That leaves the literal view, ending in Christ’s second coming. The 49 years begin with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. The 62 years terminates in the advent of Messiah. The final seven years, not surprisingly, refer to the Great Tribulation. Of course, if one opts for this reading one is committed to some form of a “gap” in time (269). Miller explains that the covenant the prince makes cannot refer to Christ, since Christ’s “covenant” or work is not temporary. Moreover, Gabriel specifically referred to both temple and city, and the “Holy of Holies” in Scripture always refers to the specific place in the temple.
If one accepts Miller’s timeline, does that commit one to a premillennial view? I am not persuaded it does. It has yet to be shown why a future Tribulation necessitates a millennial reign on earth. That is some food for thought.
Strengths:
The commentary is very easy to read, even with the Hebrew words. Miller never belabors a point and is always focused. He has a very good handling of the prophetic passages. One need not accept his type of premillennialism to appreciate the manner in which he set forth the issues.
Weaknesses:
Miller focused more on application than he needed to. While that sounds like an odd criticism for a commentary, it makes sense the more one thinks about it. Younger preachers, those who need more help with application, need more than the regular “one sentence at the end of the paragraph.” Application that is only a sentence long is often of little help. There are commentaries that are quite good with application. The New International Version Application Commentary series is quite excellent in the regard. Either devote a substantial section to application or do not do it at all. Play to one’s strengths.
One of the difficulties in writing and reviewing a commentary on a prophetic book is having to pick a side. Choosing one option logically, if not always in practice, entails a subsequent range of prophetic positions. There is no getting around this. Daniel Miller handles this problem nicely. While espousing a futurist and premillennial view, Miller is aware of the other options and provides the reader with footnotes for further study.
Date and Authorship
There are two options for the date and authorship of Daniel: either Daniel wrote it some time in the sixth century B.C., or it is a forgery from the Maccabean period. The historic view held that Daniel, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote the book when he said he did. Liberals, by contrast, not understanding that God can know the future, claim these events happened during the reign of Antiochus IV. Miller makes short work of this position.
For one, someone who fabricates the truth, and is known to do such, simply is not reliable. Moreover, Daniel uses a number of Persian loanwords, which would not have been relevant (or even known) to a second century Jew (Miller 28). Similarly, Daniel’s knowledge of ancient Babylon is far too specific for a second century Jew. By contrast, Daniel 11, presumably speaking of Antiochus IV, is actually too vague to be helpful. Even worse for this position, Persia was not a problem for second century Jews
Babylonian Monarchs
Following the relevant scholarship, Miller argues, persuasively, I think, that Nebuchadnezzar’s son was Nabonidus, who himself sired Belteshazzar.
Prophecy
As Nebuchadnezzar related his four dreams, Daniel explained they are four kingdoms: Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Regardless of one’s prophetic position, this dream parallels the events in chapter seven (though not chapter eight). Miller, not surprisingly for a premillennialist, argues that Rome must be a future Rome. This entity succeeded a coalition of ten kings or nations; that simply did not happen during ancient Rome.
Continuing the same line of thought in chapter seven, Miller argues that the little horn could not have been Antiochus IV, and for largely the same reason as above: Antiochus did not see a federation of ten kings. Only by a stretch can one see Alexander’s generals as a federation of kings, and in any case Antiochus was Greek, not Roman.
Jesus’s coming in the clouds must refer to his second coming. It must refer to a descent because if he is in the clouds, he is already in heaven. While there are referents to his first coming, not all of them obtained. For example, all people are said to worship him, which did not happen in the first century (or now).
Regarding the most difficult passage in Daniel, the Seventy Sevens, Miller explains the various options. They could be a literal period, referring to the time of Antiochus, although the number of years never really coincides with any known decree. The passage could be symbolic, ending in the first century. One is then hard-pressed to explain why such a specific number, seven, must be symbolic, and why there are different lengths of sevens, yet all refer to the same amount of time. Another view is they are symbolic, ending in Christ’s second coming. Similar difficulties apply to this view, but another problem should be noted: it is inconsistent to say the city is literal but the time is spiritual.
That leaves the literal view, ending in Christ’s second coming. The 49 years begin with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. The 62 years terminates in the advent of Messiah. The final seven years, not surprisingly, refer to the Great Tribulation. Of course, if one opts for this reading one is committed to some form of a “gap” in time (269). Miller explains that the covenant the prince makes cannot refer to Christ, since Christ’s “covenant” or work is not temporary. Moreover, Gabriel specifically referred to both temple and city, and the “Holy of Holies” in Scripture always refers to the specific place in the temple.
If one accepts Miller’s timeline, does that commit one to a premillennial view? I am not persuaded it does. It has yet to be shown why a future Tribulation necessitates a millennial reign on earth. That is some food for thought.
Strengths:
The commentary is very easy to read, even with the Hebrew words. Miller never belabors a point and is always focused. He has a very good handling of the prophetic passages. One need not accept his type of premillennialism to appreciate the manner in which he set forth the issues.
Weaknesses:
Miller focused more on application than he needed to. While that sounds like an odd criticism for a commentary, it makes sense the more one thinks about it. Younger preachers, those who need more help with application, need more than the regular “one sentence at the end of the paragraph.” Application that is only a sentence long is often of little help. There are commentaries that are quite good with application. The New International Version Application Commentary series is quite excellent in the regard. Either devote a substantial section to application or do not do it at all. Play to one’s strengths.
May 24, 2017
Are you looking for a quality exegetical work on Daniel that holds to a premillennial or dispensational viewpoint? This fine volume in the pastor-friendly New American Commentary (NAC) series has no real rival for you then. If you see it ranked average, it is usually downgraded for its prophetic outlook, not for the quality of its scholarship. That bias will erase if you read it for yourself. In fact, several amillennial reviewers reluctantly admit that the scholarship is superb. Yes, I’m very high on this book.
The Introduction is conservative, helpful, and warm. He begins with the prophet Daniel and the authorship and date of the book. He explains how the radical theories are very recent and the conservative conclusion on Daniel and its date has long been believed and for good reason. He’s helpful on historical setting and genre as well.
Commentaries on Daniel tend to be good on either the thrilling historical stories or the prophecy, but not both. Mark this one down as excelling on each one. It offered real help and insight in both categories.
This series is always your best bet for a premillennial outlook. (Check out the equally magnificent volume on Revelation in the series). Miller has given the volume that many of us have been looking for on Daniel!
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
The Introduction is conservative, helpful, and warm. He begins with the prophet Daniel and the authorship and date of the book. He explains how the radical theories are very recent and the conservative conclusion on Daniel and its date has long been believed and for good reason. He’s helpful on historical setting and genre as well.
Commentaries on Daniel tend to be good on either the thrilling historical stories or the prophecy, but not both. Mark this one down as excelling on each one. It offered real help and insight in both categories.
This series is always your best bet for a premillennial outlook. (Check out the equally magnificent volume on Revelation in the series). Miller has given the volume that many of us have been looking for on Daniel!
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
October 4, 2015
The NAC series used to be my favorite commentary series until i found the NICOT/NICNT. But there is no NICOT available for the book of Daniel. This is a conservative interpretation of Daniel with a focus of the fore-telling aspect of prophecy rather than a forth-telling one. I would have preferred more of a what does the Aramaic and Hebrew mean rather than a focus on interpretation. I did learn that Daniel was written in both of the above languages rather than just Hebrew like the rest of the OT which is fascinating in itself. (Why!?). I find it odd that the author suggested at times that meanings in Daniel should be such and such since Revelation said something-I would assume it would always be the other way, ie Revelations understanding depends on Daniel.
May 7, 2021
I've come to enjoy the New American Commentary series. I've not yet had one let me down. They are technical, but not overly so. They aren't the deepest commentaries out there, but have plenty enough meat on the bone.
I read this particular volume while preaching through Daniel and it was definitely one of my top 2 commentaries. I thought Miller did a fine job of both defending what he saw the text to teach as well as answering opposing positions.
I read this particular volume while preaching through Daniel and it was definitely one of my top 2 commentaries. I thought Miller did a fine job of both defending what he saw the text to teach as well as answering opposing positions.
December 4, 2024
Much of the first 5 chapters is well written and complimentary of differing views. Reaching the prophetic sections of the book it seems the author has suddenly become disinterested in differing views and becomes insulting and dismissive. It's difficult to rate a commentary but the tone taken towards different views makes this rate lower than it certainly could.
To clarify, this was read as an accompaniment to reading Daniel, and was not used in preparation, but read more as a topical book.
Three years later and I'm back again. If you want a commentary that reinforces your eschatological viewpoint and Miller is opining yours - then this is your commentary. If you want challenges you won't find them.
To clarify, this was read as an accompaniment to reading Daniel, and was not used in preparation, but read more as a topical book.
Three years later and I'm back again. If you want a commentary that reinforces your eschatological viewpoint and Miller is opining yours - then this is your commentary. If you want challenges you won't find them.
December 13, 2020
Miller's book is a valuable contribution. In the introduction one of the best defenses of the traditional dating of the authorship of Daniel is presented, and this is bolstered throughout the rest of the commentary. Miller is well-read, noting the field of interpretations for most passages before making the argument for his own. I was glad to see he even quotes postmillennialist R.J. Rushdoony at times. Though I am in disagreement with several of Miller's eschatological conclusions, I found his reasoning to be fair and judicious.
October 22, 2020
This contained more Daniel summary than Daniel commentary. I was disappointed that this commentary gave so little insight into such a rich biblical text! I only used this commentary through Daniel 6 (the narrative portion), because our bible study group chose to switch to a different, more in-depth commentary for the prophetic portion of Daniel. It isn't an awful writing, but I would not recommend it.
January 23, 2020
While I admired this commentary for its meticulousness, the fantastic irony of this commentary is that the author, while admiring Daniel's faith in God's wise kingship in the midst of his trials, goes to great lengths to prove that God cannot be king today through Jesus because...just look how bad the world is, amiright? A wonderful example of a commentator completely missing the forest for the trees, something that will stay with me for a long time.
March 1, 2019
Excellent study!
June 25, 2020
Solid; evangelical and dispensational
July 12, 2021
Found it to be more helpful than expected.
January 7, 2024
A little too much theological propaganda for my taste. Some honest exegetical work coupled with some dishonest theology.
June 25, 2023
Great way to study Daniel
I was so glad I choose to dive into this book. It was tough at times, but so worth the insight. We have lost the art of really studying God’s word for ourselves. This is a great way to bring more depth to the word. I love it that this was often quoted in another commentary. Others think he scholarship is solid too!
I was so glad I choose to dive into this book. It was tough at times, but so worth the insight. We have lost the art of really studying God’s word for ourselves. This is a great way to bring more depth to the word. I love it that this was often quoted in another commentary. Others think he scholarship is solid too!
May 3, 2014
A good, solid, conservative, premillennial commentary on the Book of Daniel. Miller's style is not very inspiring, but his insights are valuable. Anyone studying Daniel should have a copy of this commentary.
May 17, 2007
Talbot Course: Exposition in Daniel & Revelation
Excellent Commentary on Daniel!
Excellent Commentary on Daniel!
February 6, 2015
A good, straightforward literal interpretation of the book of Daniel. This book was a requirement for a college class.
December 18, 2017
I read this commentary as I taught the book of Daniel. I learned a lot and I appreciated the multiple interpretations for some of the more difficult passages.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews